Post by account_disabled on Mar 7, 2024 3:59:14 GMT -5
The Federal Council of the OAB questions in the Federal Supreme Court the law in Rio Grande do Sul that increases the deadline for the government to pay small value requests (RPV). In the Direct Unconstitutionality Action, which will be reported by Minister Dias Toffoli, the OAB states that Law , establishes an "official default" that will affect "food credits of thousands of active and inactive civil servants and pensioners in the state of Rio Grande do South, many already at an advanced age".
According to the OAB, the state government and the Legislative Assembly of Rio Grande do Sul exceeded the deadline set out in Constitutional Amendment , of , to edit the law. Still according to the entity, state law is "dissociated" from its "constitutional matrix", provided for in article of the Federal Constitution.
Among the unconstitutionalities pointed out are setting a BTC Number Data specific deadline for payment of small value court orders, establishing a specific chronological order system for this type of court order, differentiating the deadline for payment of RPVs (small value requisitions) of up to seven minimum wages of others of an identical nature, change monetary restatement criteria defined in a court decision (res judicata) and limit annual payments to the existence of a balance in an account specifically created for this type of court order.
The OAB maintains that paragraph of article of the Constitution allows states and municipalities to regulate the value of RPVs, but that this is violated by Rio Grande do Sul Law ,/ (article ) because the states' competence in this matter is residual. Furthermore, the entity states that the state standard establishes a deadline of days for payment of RPVs, going against federal laws that deal with the subject and set a deadline of days (Federal Law ,/ and ,/).
The OAB argues that this deadline is a rule of a procedural nature. Therefore, a state law could not provide for the matter. “Although these are budgetary aspects, the matter in question essentially concerns the execution process against the Public Treasury, with a clear conflict with the Federal Charter and the federal legislation that governs the matter”, concludes the entity on the matter.
The entity representing the legal profession says that the law "provides for payments in chronological order and limited to the amount available in a specific account, fed by equally limited contributions. This results in the possibility that debts will be listed over the years, reproducing themselves precisely the vicious circle of court orders that was intended to be broken".
Another unconstitutionality highlighted is that of paragraph of article of Rio Grande do Sul Law ,/, which favors the payment of court orders of up to seven minimum wages to the detriment of others, which can reach up to minimum wages. The OAB states that this distinction is incompatible with the Constitution. Article of the state rule, in turn, makes it clear that the rule only applies to court orders issued by the state court.
According to the OAB, the state government and the Legislative Assembly of Rio Grande do Sul exceeded the deadline set out in Constitutional Amendment , of , to edit the law. Still according to the entity, state law is "dissociated" from its "constitutional matrix", provided for in article of the Federal Constitution.
Among the unconstitutionalities pointed out are setting a BTC Number Data specific deadline for payment of small value court orders, establishing a specific chronological order system for this type of court order, differentiating the deadline for payment of RPVs (small value requisitions) of up to seven minimum wages of others of an identical nature, change monetary restatement criteria defined in a court decision (res judicata) and limit annual payments to the existence of a balance in an account specifically created for this type of court order.
The OAB maintains that paragraph of article of the Constitution allows states and municipalities to regulate the value of RPVs, but that this is violated by Rio Grande do Sul Law ,/ (article ) because the states' competence in this matter is residual. Furthermore, the entity states that the state standard establishes a deadline of days for payment of RPVs, going against federal laws that deal with the subject and set a deadline of days (Federal Law ,/ and ,/).
The OAB argues that this deadline is a rule of a procedural nature. Therefore, a state law could not provide for the matter. “Although these are budgetary aspects, the matter in question essentially concerns the execution process against the Public Treasury, with a clear conflict with the Federal Charter and the federal legislation that governs the matter”, concludes the entity on the matter.
The entity representing the legal profession says that the law "provides for payments in chronological order and limited to the amount available in a specific account, fed by equally limited contributions. This results in the possibility that debts will be listed over the years, reproducing themselves precisely the vicious circle of court orders that was intended to be broken".
Another unconstitutionality highlighted is that of paragraph of article of Rio Grande do Sul Law ,/, which favors the payment of court orders of up to seven minimum wages to the detriment of others, which can reach up to minimum wages. The OAB states that this distinction is incompatible with the Constitution. Article of the state rule, in turn, makes it clear that the rule only applies to court orders issued by the state court.